Lets end it: Sydney Barnes

A look at his record is superb, but then conditions where sooooooooooooo much different to what they are now. Some on here have claimed him to be best or one of the best bowlers ever. So let's settle it for once and for all, is he the best bowler ever or indeed top 5 or 10? Or a very lucky bowler who took advantage of helpful pitch conditions (he did play on matting at some point) but not that good? Or we can't be sure because he finished his FC career in 1930 and then cricket changed even more.

Vote away.

Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

Originally Posted by Boobidy

Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

No doubt in my mind. I said it elsewhere, but I find it a real shame that Barnes did not come accross early in his career an understanding captain who realised he was special and was willing to bend over backwards to ensure he achieved what he was capable of.

Had he done that, and debuted in First-Class cricket at the normal sort of age (21-22) then played Test cricket and for a major county for the next 20 years, playing 40 or 50 Tests, I'm totally confident he'd have as unequivocal a case for being the greatest bowler as Bradman has with the bat.

It's not like Barnes was a 19th-century bowler. Since the turn of the 20th-century, no bowler has even really come close to achieving figures like his, and nor is it surprising given how we know from testimonies that he bowled.

No doubt in my mind. I said it elsewhere, but I find it a real shame that Barnes did not come accross early in his career an understanding captain who realised he was special and was willing to bend over backwards to ensure he achieved what he was capable of.

It's hard to tell exactly what he was. I do think he was a bit overrated, however. His career coincided with some of the lowest batting averages in history. That's what I know, if there is reasoning behind this I'd love the background knowledge.

'Good' on what basis. Good in being able to negotiate the bowlers of the times who skills were presumably limited due to any lack of standardised coaching. Barnes was very different to any bowler of his time and so a batsman being 'good' can become slightly moot.